It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

When Trump Loses

page: 17
61
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 05:28 AM
link   
a reply to: WilburnRoach

They are the majority of the people in the US. BUT unfortunately they also vote less then the Liberals.

Liberals love their "causes", so tend to vote and rally more.
Conservatives for the most part just want to be left alone, so tend to sit back and not engage.

The Tea Party was the beginning of the waking giant of conservatives. The Trump movement is furthering of this wake up.




posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 05:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: WilburnRoach

When Trump looses, we'll be so busy dealing with all the leftists sobbing because they "didn't know what they were doing" and "they are sorry for voting for her".

So no uprising because we'll be too busy consoling hysterical leftists.


Umm maybe just herd them all into their "safe place", then have Trump build the wall. We could herd them all to California, I think that is a lost cause anyway.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

That is because most of them have their hands out wanting something. Time the rest of the world learns to stand on it own feet.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Bluntone22


Hard to believe that any democrats have trust in the system after the bernie/hillary fiasco.


That was certainly the point of the "leak," right? Next up: the defeat of liberal democracy.


Yep down with the liberal democracy and bring back our representative republic we where founded on.

Of course that also means we need representatives that are not bought and paid for also.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: DJW001

Maybe it's because more and more people came to the conclusion that democracy is the biggest lie ever invented.


TRUE

That is why our Founding Fathers made a Representative Republic and not a Democracy. I love how most people tend to forget this.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful
a reply to: DJW001

I have absolutely no trust in any one that seeks power.

The best leaders are those who tend to be reluctant to be put in that position.





Which is one of the reason I looked at Trump. Why would a man in his position run?

Money?
PLEASE. The man has more then he would ever get by being President.

Power?
In many ways he has more power now then he would as President. He can hire/fire plan/build buy/sell at his whim right now. As President, he will lose a lot of this direct power.

Prestige?
OK that may be one answer.

Over all I can't see why he is doing this if it is not for the very reason he says. Because he is feed-up with people in power and wants to fix it. Can he? That's another question. Maybe?

But I'm willing to try something new before sliding down the slope we are on.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: seeker1963


No wonder you Progs hate the Constitution!


The United States Constitution is the defining document of liberal democracy. Pity Trump has clearly never read it.


That shows what you know.

The US WAS NEVER DESIGNED as a democracy. In fact the Founding Fathers thought that Democracy was one of the worst ideas ever created by man. They formed a Representative Republic.

Learn the difference.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   
a reply to: stinkelbaum

One slight problem with that.

Holding am office is not one of the Constitutional requirements to run for President.

So IF they did that it would cause all sorts of problems and law suits.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc
The US WAS NEVER DESIGNED as a democracy. In fact the Founding Fathers thought that Democracy was one of the worst ideas ever created by man. They formed a Representative Republic.

Learn the difference.


^^ This.

The Founding Fathers did not want a Democracy. They wanted a Republic. A Democracy offers the people direct power, but under a Republic that power can be subtly diluted by funnelling it through an Electoral College system.

The Founding Fathers ensured that direct democracy was impossible; voters could only express their wishes via the Electoral College. As a result, a presidential candidate can still win the election even if he loses the popular vote.

This was done to prevent majority rule, which the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to. They wanted a system in which one party could defeat the others and seize or hold power even against the will of the people.
edit on 19/9/2016 by MongolianPaellaFish because: added some other stuffs...



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: ketsuko
And you bring up another excellent point:

No one should fear a Trump presidency. Both sides hate him so much that if he sets one foot wrong, impeachment would be the first bipartisan thing Congress has done since the Clinton era.


Thats the one thing about Trump as a potential POTUS..he would be a lame duck from day 1.
He would build a wall perhaps, otherwise, not much else will happen. Neither R nor D is gonna let it be considered a success, he is anti-establishment, and the people holding the power of the purse and overriding is the establishment.

The biggest issue I have with Trump is how our allies overseas views him (by his own words). Being seen as a pariah on the world stage isn't good for business.


Would still be a step in the right direction compared to the last 8 years and 4/8 if Hillary gets in.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: dismanrc
The US WAS NEVER DESIGNED as a democracy. In fact the Founding Fathers thought that Democracy was one of the worst ideas ever created by man. They formed a Representative Republic.

Learn the difference.


^^ This.

The Founding Fathers did not want a Democracy. They wanted a Republic. A Democracy offers the people direct power, but under a Republic that power can be subtly diluted by funnelling it through an Electoral College system.

The Founding Fathers ensured that direct democracy was impossible; voters could only express their wishes via the Electoral College. As a result, a presidential candidate can still win the election even if he loses the popular vote.

This was done to prevent majority rule, which the Founding Fathers were strongly opposed to. They wanted a system in which one party could defeat the others and seize or hold power even against the will of the people.



I was hoping people would have looked it up and done some research on their own. But maybe just ptting it out there and letting them read it is good too.

PS. Wait until you get the request on references for this info



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish


They wanted a system in which one party could defeat the others and seize or hold power even against the will of the people.


No, they absolutely did not. What you are describing is single party rule, also known as totalitarianism. I can see some members are in need of some education. "Liberal democracy" does not mean "direct democracy." It is a generic term used to contrast secular representative governments that derive their legitimacy from the consent of the people from other forms which claim their legitimacy from divine right or sheer power.

Much as I hate to resort to Wikipedia:


Liberal democracy is a political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. It is also called western democracy. It is characterised by fair, free, and competitive elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties, and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world.


en.wikipedia.org... [Emphasis mine. --DJW001]

And, just so there is no further confusion:


Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedoms in economic liberalism.[1][2]

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization.[3] Notable individuals whose ideas have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on the economics of Adam Smith and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7]


en.wikipedia.org...

When reactionaries spit the word "Liberal" out as an insult, they are showing their ignorance. Capitalism, free trade, and representative government are at the core of liberalism. I am proud to be a liberal in that sense.

Edit tyo add:


PS. Wait until you get the request on references for this info


As a matter of fact, I am curious what websites you frequent that you have gotten such a distorted education about political science. Do I also need to explain what economic liberalism means?
edit on 19-9-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish


They wanted a system in which one party could defeat the others and seize or hold power even against the will of the people.


No, they absolutely did not. What you are describing is single party rule, also known as totalitarianism.


No, I'm not, because nobody gets a vote under totalitarianism. The American Republic model does involve voting, but it's conducted in such a way that a presidential candidate can win the people's support yet still lose the election. This is exactly what happened to Al Gore, remember?

Thus, a party can retain or seize power via an election in which the will of the people is overridden by the Electoral College.

Remember, the Founding Fathers did not want a Republic in which all men and women are equal. They wanted a Republic in which black people were slaves and women couldn't vote. Which is exactly what the USA had until emancipation and women's suffrage.

Liberals seem to think that the Founding Fathers were leftists, like themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.
edit on 19/9/2016 by MongolianPaellaFish because: added some other stuffs...



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish


No, totalitarianism doesn't involve voting. The American Republic model does involve voting, but it's conducted in such a way that a presidential candidate can win the people's support yet still lose the election. This is exactly what happened to Al Gore, remember?


Totalitarianism most certainly does involve voting... it's just that the ruling party always wins by a landslide. The Founders were indeed suspicious of direct democracy, hence the Legislative Branch and Electoral College.


Thus, a party can retain or seize power via an election in which the will of the people is overridden by the Electoral College.


That was not the Founder's intent; it was not about power, it was about creating a stable commonwealth.


Remember, the Founding Fathers did not want a Republic in which all men and women are equal. They wanted a Republic in which black people were slaves and women couldn't vote. Which is exactly what the USA had until emancipation and women's suffrage.


There was disagreement about how universal the rights, including suffrage and slavery, would be among the Founders. It is the universal expansion of freedom and rights that is the defining characteristic of liberalism. I'm sorry if you want it to go back to the way it was; you can always vote for Trump and help him seize power.

ETA: Seriously: where do you get this stuff? Is there a Fascist American Civics textbook being used somewhere?
edit on 19-9-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish


Liberals seem to think that the Founding Fathers were leftists, like themselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.


And some people seem to think the Founders were Fascists obsessed with power.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001Totalitarianism most certainly does involve voting...


No. you're thinking of authoritarianism. Totalitarianism involves complete control over every aspect of state and society; there is no such thing as private life, and on the rare occasions when voting is permitted, it's only a sham because the result is always predetermined in favour of the ruling power. There is no democratic process.


The Founders were indeed suspicious of direct democracy, hence the Legislative Branch and Electoral College.


Because they knew that direct democracy offers majority rule. They wanted a system under which a minority could rule a majority.



Thus, a party can retain or seize power via an election in which the will of the people is overridden by the Electoral College.


That was not the Founder's intent; it was not about power, it was about creating a stable commonwealth.


LOL, sure it was.
The consolidation of power in the hands of a minority is one of the best ways to guarantee stability. Funny how that works...


It is the universal expansion of freedom and rights that is the defining characteristic of liberalism.['/quote]

A feature completely absent from the Founding Fathers' rationale; a feature completely absent from any of the founding documents.


I'm sorry if you want it to go back to the way it was; you can always vote for Trump and help him seize power.


Oh, so you are a leftist? Perhaps a socialist as well?


edit on 19/9/2016 by MongolianPaellaFish because: added some other stuffs...



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: WilburnRoach

I can't wait for anarchism to become the popular, political philosophy.

This back-and-forth between children who need masters is annoying.

Why do I have to obey Trump or Hillary just because you decide to?



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish


The consolidation of power in the hands of a minority is one of the best ways to guarantee stability


The consolidation of authority into the hands of anyone is the entire issue.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish


No. you're thinking of authoritarianism. Totalitarianism involves complete control over every aspect of state and society; there is no such thing as private life, and on the rare occasions when voting is permitted, it's only a sham because the result is always predetermined in favour of the ruling power. There is no democratic process.


You are confusing voting with democracy. They hold votes in North Korea you know. You seem to be in need of education concerning politics and government.



The Founders were indeed suspicious of direct democracy, hence the Legislative Branch and Electoral College.


Because they knew that direct democracy offers majority rule. They wanted a system under which a minority could rule a majority.


Not exactly; they wanted a system where no one individual wielded all the power, as in a monarchy, and where the interests of the commonwealth were administered by those with a stake in it. In practice, of course, this was wealthy landowners and merchants. The objective was not for a "minority to rule a majority."




That was not the Founder's intent; it was not about power, it was about creating a stable commonwealth.


LOL, sure it was. The consolidation of power in the hands of a minority is one of the best ways to guarantee stability. Funny how that works...


If that were true no empire would ever have fallen, and the whole world would still be ruled by hereditary monarchs. In fact, social mobility, the rule of law, and other liberal democratic values lead to long term stability and the constant enrichment of society through the introduction of new, adaptive ideas and practices.



It is the universal expansion of freedom and rights that is the defining characteristic of liberalism.

A feature completely absent from the Founding Fathers' rationale; a feature completely absent from any of the founding documents.


None of them ever said "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"



Oh, so you are a leftist? Perhaps a socialist as well?


That depends... do you consider Thomas Jefferson to be a leftist?

The preceding exchange is suggestive of the Russian campaign to undermine liberal democracy. Although I do not think Russia ever planned to have Donald Trump run for the presidency, I think that it is significant that his supporters do not understand such basic concepts as liberal democracy.



posted on Sep, 19 2016 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: LordSatan


Why do I have to obey Trump or Hillary just because you decide to?


No-one says you have to. One of the virtues of liberal democracy is that you are free to leave. If Canada is not anarchic enough for you, try Somalia.



new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join